Back

Cardiometabolic risk phenogroups from a data-driven classification with expanded risk factors

Feng, J.; Chew, J. H. S.; Liu, H.; Mikulic, N.; Ambastha, A. K.; Leow, M. K. S.; Hausenloy, D. J.; Muthiah, M.; Wang, W.; Ling, L. H.; Chee, M.; Ong, J. L.; Chin, C. W. L.; Liu, D.; Seow, W.; Merchant, R. A.; Zhou, X.; Yang, Q.; Car, J.; Foo, R. S.

2026-06-24 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.06.15.26355645 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and Aims Current diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome (MetS) may inadequately capture underlying metabolic heterogeneity and associated cardiovascular risks. We aimed to use expanded cardiometabolic variables to identify new cardiometabolic phenogroups with relevance to prognosis and risk stratification. Methods Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to a discovery cohort (RESET; n=1,034), using the six conventional MetS measures and eight additional variables. A decision tree model was constructed using the most important variables to enable practical phenogroup classification and facilitate external validation. External validation was conducted in three independent cohorts, PICMAN (n = 120), UK Biobank (n = 344,817), and CHARLS (n = 12,145), analysing for proteomic signatures and cardiovascular outcomes. Results Five latent phenogroups were identified in the discovery cohort: Metabolically Preserved with and without isolated hypertension (each n=244; 23.6%), Lean-Insulin Resistant (IR) (n=140; 13.5%), Obese-Insulin Sensitive (IS) (n=211; 20.4%), and Obese-IR (n=195; 18.9%). Lean-IR and Obese-IS showed discordant adiposity and insulin/glycemic status, and a low prevalence of MetS (21.4% and 31.3%, respectively), whereas MetS was high (75.9%) only in the Obese-IR group. A decision tree model using four binary indicators (visceral adiposity, IR, elevated SBP, and HbA1c) accurately classified individuals into the five latent phenogroups and was subsequently deployed for external validation. Validation in PICMAN showed significantly higher liver fat (Mean 9.0% [SD 6.3%]) in Lean-IR versus Metabolically Preserved (Mean 2.8% [SD 1.8%], P=0.002). Plasma proteomic analyses further reflected unique metabolic-inflammation signatures across the 5 groups. Validation in the UK Biobank showed significant association between the latent phenogroups with outcomes of myocardial infarction and stroke. Hazard ratios for the composite outcome after adjusting for age and sex were 1.52 (95% CI, 1.43-1.61) for isolated hypertension, 1.86 (1.75-1.98) for Lean-IR, 1.85 (1.75-1.97) for Obese-IS, and 2.75 (2.56-2.95) for Obese-IR, compared with the Metabolically Preserved group. Conclusion Expanded cardiometabolic risk factors reveal metabolic heterogeneity obscured by current MetS criteria. Incorporating visceral adiposity and IR into a novel classification system refines cardiovascular risk stratification for the management of cardiometabolic disease.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Heart Journal
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.7%
2
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
3
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
4
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.2%
5
Circulation
74 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.6%
6
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.1%
7
Cardiovascular Research
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.2%
9
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
10
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Atherosclerosis
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
12
JACC: Basic to Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
13
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
14
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
15
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
16
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
18
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
19
Diabetologia
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
20
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
21
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.1%
22
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.1%
23
Open Heart
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
24
Heart
11 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
25
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
26
Hypertension
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
27
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
29
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
30
Journal of Hypertension
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%